Can moral judgments be true or false? Or is ethics, at bottom, a purely subjective matter, for individuals to choose, or perhaps relative to the culture of the society in which one lives? We might have just found out the answer.

Among philosophers, the view that moral judgments state objective truths has been out of fashion since the 1930's, when logical positivists asserted that, because there seems to be no way of verifying the truth of moral judgments, they cannot be anything other than expressions of our feelings or attitudes.

So, for example, when we say, "You ought not to hit that child," all we are really doing is expressing our disapproval of your hitting the child, or encouraging you to stop hitting the child. There is no truth to the matter of whether or not it is wrong for you to hit the child.

Although this view of ethics has often been challenged, many of the objections have come from religious thinkers who appealed to God's commands. Such arguments have limited appeal in the largely secular world of Western philosophy.

Other defences of objective truth in ethics made no appeal to religion, but could make little headway against the prevailing philosophical mood.

Last month, however, saw a major philosophical event: the publication of Derek Parfit's long-awaited book On What Matters. Until now, Parfit, who is Emeritus Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford, had written only one book, Reasons and Persons, which appeared in 1984, to great acclaim.

Parfit's entirely secular arguments, and the comprehensive way in which he tackles alternative positions, have, for the first time in decades, put those who reject objectivism in ethics on the defensive.

On What Matters is a book of daunting length: two large volumes, totalling more than 1,400 pages, of densely argued text. But the core of the argument comes in the first 400 pages, which is not an insurmountable challenge for the intellectually curious - particularly given that Parfit, in the best tradition of English-language philosophy, always strives for lucidity, never using obscure words where simple ones will do.

Each sentence is straightforward, the argument is clear, and Parfit often uses vivid examples to make his points. Thus, the book is an intellectual treat for anyone who wants to understand not so much "what matters" as whether anything really can matter, in an objective sense.

Many people assume that rationality is always instrumental: reason can tell us only how to get what we want, but our basic wants and desires are beyond the scope of reasoning. Not so, Parfit argues.

Just as we can grasp the truth that 1 + 1 = 2, so we can see that I have a reason to avoid suffering agony at some future time, regardless of whether I now care about, or have desires about, whether I will suffer agony at that time.

We can also have reasons (though not always conclusive reasons) to prevent others from suffering agony. Such self-evident normative truths provide the basis for Parfit's defence of objectivity in ethics.

One major argument against objectivism in ethics is that people disagree deeply about right and wrong, and this disagreement extends to philosophers who cannot be accused of being ignorant or confused. If great thinkers like Immanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham disagree about what we ought to do, can there really be an objectively true answer to that question?

Parfit's response to this line of argument leads him to make a claim that is perhaps even bolder than his defence of objectivism in ethics.

He considers three leading theories about what we ought to do - one deriving from Kant, one from the social-contract tradition of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and the contemporary philosophers John Rawls and T.M. Scanlon, and one from Bentham's utilitarianism - and argues that the Kantian and social-contract theories must be revised in order to be defensible.

Then he argues that these revised theories coincide with a particular form of consequentialism, which is a theory in the same broad family as utilitarianism. If Parfit is right, there is much less disagreement between apparently conflicting moral theories than we all thought. The defenders of each of these theories are, in Parfit's vivid phrase, "climbing the same mountain on different sides."

Readers who go to On What Matters seeking an answer to the question posed by its title might be disappointed. Parfit's real interest is in combating subjectivism and nihilism. Unless he can show that objectivism is true, he believes, nothing matters.

When Parfit does come to the question of "what matters," his answer might seem surprisingly obvious. He tells us, for example, that what matters most now is that "we rich people give up some of our luxuries, ceasing to overheat the Earth's atmosphere, and taking care of this planet in other ways, so that it continues to support intelligent life."

Many of us had already reached that conclusion. What we gain from Parfit's work is the possibility of defending these and other moral claims as objective truths.

Peter Singer is Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne. Revised editions of his books Practical Ethics and The Expanding Circle have just been published.

Actions

Share

Comments (27)

Barj :

05 Jul 2011 10:20:00am

There may well be physicality visible truth to the matter of whether or not it is wrong to hit a child. Personally I believe the practice to be abominable, regardless of the degree, but that is just my opinion. However the truth of the matter could very well be more or less plain to see, or detect by professionals, if not by the general public, depending on how hard the child was hit. And I think a study of court records should provide proof enough, even for you.

Jesse :

03 Jul 2011 7:40:50am

Pretty interesting article. Since Singer is famously one of the people who takes utilitarian ideas to their most extreme conclusions, I wonder if he will address the implications of an objective turn - especially if he believes himself to 'on the defensive' as he seems to be admitting.

Puddleglumswager :

Therefore, there exists an infinite Reality which is immaterial, eternal, indestructible and objective: the Set of All Possible Truths. This invisible cosmos is glimpsed with the mind, just as the visible cosmos is glimpsed with the eye. Again, just as a telescope magnifies the power of the eye to see, mathematics, philosophy, theology, science magnifies the power of the mind to see.

The commonly used word for the infinite, eternal, immaterial, indestructible Set of All Possible Truth is God.

"Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God." Without food, the body is dead. Without truth, the mind is dead.

It's our task to conform our life to the truth, not truth to our life.

Barj :

Holly (Christ lives within) :

30 Jun 2011 11:04:02pm

PuddleglumswagerThat is one effortlessly beautiful timeless comment you have constructed, objective and subjective at the same time as it should be. Where do we place ourselves in the timeless cosmos, if not for our eternal hope of resurrection in Christ: The only objectivity that in the end matters as we commit ourselves to the building of a better world when we comprehend the true potential of God's Eternal Plan and purpose in the HERE AND NOW. The language that is evolving in God’s people is taking shape; a new direction is forming on the horizon for us all. Thank you for your cosmic thoughts. Holly

andrewk :

11 Aug 2011 10:07:49am

Your first paragraph doesn't follow from your second one.

Further, the "set of all possible truths", to which you refer in your second paragraph, is not a properly-defined set, and attempting to give it a sound definition will inevitably lead to contradictions. Google "Russell's paradox" to understand why.

Hudson Godfrey :

25 Jun 2011 6:02:14pm

I guess that were it to exist then the kind of objectivity that people mostly seem to theorise about would be expected to provide some kind of certainty. I find that part perplexing in itself since certainty is very much the exception rather than the rule in nature.

In fact the only aspect of nature that seems to provide for any certainty at all is mathematics. Outside of that our moral or ethical ideas are along with all our science open to being proved wrong should new evidence emerge. Thus the quality of certainty is as elusive as imperfect knowledge of a not too well travelled species in a vast and mysterious universe. So it may be possible to give a well understood meaning to the word "certainty" and to conceive of it as a distinct possibility, but to expect it in practical terms seems to fall somewhere between arrogance and delusion.

On the other hand to say that nothing matters if perfect objectivity eludes us is to fail to organise our priorities according to the best of our abilities and that to me seems unethical in itself. Surely if the best we can expect to do is render a faithful consideration of the facts that are available at any given point in time then we cannot expect to be accountable for knowledge that only comes to us afterwards. I think in that sense of the word we can talk about a reasonable standard of objectivity that makes practical sense and allows normative ethics to proceed on that basis.

Duncan :

24 Jun 2011 2:18:21pm

"Can moral judgments be true or false?"

They can be closer to our genetic moral tendencies, or further from them. That is, such tendencies are normative.

They include dislike of one who harms, fairness/reciprocity, respect for authority, loyalty to groups including non-family groups, purity through self-denial, nurturing, and no doubt more. Individuals may possess each tendency to a greater or lesser degree.

On that foundation, and sometimes overriding it, upbringing, culture, education and experience all shape an individual's moral reactions.

"Or is ethics, at bottom, a purely subjective matter, for individuals to choose, or perhaps relative to the culture of the society in which one lives?"

The singular thing about moral reactions is that the individual thinks of them as "We should", and not "I should", so we've evolved to regard our own views as universally desirable.

So when (in Professor Singer's example) we say "You ought not to hit that child", we're disliking one who harms, we're perhaps nurturing, and on top of that may be further factors particular to the occasion; and we likely feel that the principle that makes us say it has universal application.

THE BIBLE HAS THE ANSWER :

28 Jun 2011 5:41:35pm

"..our genetic moral tendencies....include dislike of one who harms..." etc.

How did these and the other attributes mentioned come to be part of our genetic makeup?

"So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." (Genesis 1:27).Most theologians agree that the image of God referred to here are His "moral attributes" that are an inner part of every human being.

However, that "image" of God in mankind has been marred by deliberate rebellion against God.

Our "moral attributes" are largely guided today then, by our own egos, passions, and desires.And each culture will invariably clash according to how far they have fallen from the source - the one true God.

"24 So the children of Israel departed from there at that time, every man to his tribe and family; they went out from there, every man to his inheritance. 25 In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes."(Judges 21:24-25)

Murray Alfredson :

02 Jul 2011 3:05:52pm

This, Mr Biblical, is no satisfactory position from which to meet the problems of our world or of our own western societies, as most people in the world, and even in the western world do not accept the Bible or divine authority as a basis for moral thought. Indeed, why should we, even those of us who are either Jews, Christians or Muslims? Because the god of the Bible is so much depicted as wrathful, destructive and bloodthirsty. Correctly read, the story of the early Hebrews is one of god exhorting them to holocaust of their neighbours, effectively to human sacrifice. And this is not a matter of a divide between the god of the Old Testament and of the New, but it is there in the construction of the death of Jesus as a sacrifice for human sin -- in other words, a sort of supreme human sacrifice.

Do not bother to tell me that the Biblical god is often also depicted as a god of loving-kindness. I recognise this too. I see no reason why a collection of writings that evolved from human thought over say 1000 years, and by many authors and redactors, should be consistent. This is a massive divide that runs through the whole ethos of the Bible. I love the Bible; I often read and enjoy it. I know it well. It contains much that is humanly very moving. And even the negative aspects I have pointed out can be read as people trying to make sense of an often hostile world around them.

But a basis for us to build a consensus ethic it is not, even were the world to accept it as divine. And most of the world does not so accept it.

THE BIBLE HAS THE ANSWER :

04 Jul 2011 5:26:42pm

I do not intend to debate issues in this forum, but if I do comment I will try to let the Bible speak for itself.

People may not like what the Bible has to say, but I do believe the Bible has an answer to all of our concerns and questions about life. I will also apply the "K.I.S.S." principle to any comments I may make.

According to the following verses, it seems that God's love and justice go hand-in-hand:

Deuteronomy 9:4-5 "4 After the LORD your God has driven them out before you, do not say to yourself, 'The LORD has brought me here to take possession of this land because of my righteousness.' No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is going to drive them out before you. 5 It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations, the LORD your God will drive them out before you, to accomplish what he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."

Murray Alfredson :

06 Jul 2011 7:00:25pm

The Bible does not have the answer, but many voices and answers. That is what one should expect from the way in which it was formed or gathered and redacted.

And the god that appears in some parts throughout the Bible is indeed a bloodthirsty, cruel and evil being. See that god as a human or cultural creation, then that god becomes more understandable, though not more acceptable.

FAIR DINKUM :

07 Jul 2011 1:00:09am

Hi Murray and Bibleman...Let's say that God WAS created by an individual or culture; and it WAS created as an evil bloodthirsty being. Then its creator (the human race)created the god in it's own image.

"All have turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is no-one who does good, not even one."Psalm 14:3

andrewk :

11 Aug 2011 10:13:22am

"How did these and the other [moral] attributes mentioned come to be part of our genetic makeup? "

There are more than one potential answers to this question. The one I like best is that we evolved these moral instincts because they were an aid to the survival of our species. Criticisms of this theory usually stem from mistaking "survival of the species" for "survival of the individual". They are two very different things.

Murray Alfredson :

22 Jun 2011 5:44:53pm

I do not always agree with Professor Singer's broadly utilitarian philosophy, but I always find him worth while reading and taking notice of.

I have long felt that Christian clergy have done ethics and moral discourse and advocacy in our society by insisting on obedience to god as a criterion for moral behaviour. Singer's utilitarian arguments and their practical import do provide a reasonable basis to found morality in our relativistic society and Zeitgeist.

I shall certainly follow up his warm recommendation of Parfitt's book. God based morality and moral systems are useless in any society where a substantial proportion of the populace either passively or actively rejects the god idea. WE do need a broadly acceptable system of morality to replace the old, even though it comprise similar precepts in practice, a system that parents and teachers in particular can appeal to fearlessly in guiding young people towards mature adulthood.

Personally, I find the idea of obedience to the will of god brings with it grave moral danger for those stuck in a rigid right/wrong mode of thought, and who reinforce that illusion of rightness by resting it on 'divine' authority. I find it also a moral cop-out, as it too easily shunts a sense of personal responsibility off on to some distant 'divinity'.

Murray Alfredson :

06 Jul 2011 6:51:17pm

So, one person's view is as good as another's? The reductio ad absurdam for that would be that the rapist's stance is as good as his (or her) victim's. I think Singer's serious business is to establish or step towards establishing a more satisfactory basis for conducting personal and social life than that, but one which is able to command broad social respect in a way that authoritarian religious stances that rest on 'the will of god and obedience to it' cannot.

Sola Ratione :

20 Jun 2011 11:03:38am

Many thanks for this very helpful review and recommendation.

Parfit's recent book is indeed an 'intellectual treat'. It is also formidable challenge to Christian leaders and apologists who, at almost every opportunity, vociferously denounce 'the rising tide of secularism' on the grounds that the absence of a 'Divine Commander' necessarily entails moral subjectivism and nihilism.

One can only hope that at least some of them might take a deep breath, calm down a little, and make a serious attempt to read and understand Parfit's book.

Murray Alfredson :

06 Jul 2011 6:55:47pm

Because it is not a logical conclusion, or at least not valid. One false assumption lies behind your rhetorical question: that the only alternative to divine authority is radical relativism. Others of us look for places of moral commitment within a relativist world, because that is a practical and reasonable way to conduct life.

Duncan :

19 Jun 2011 12:16:41pm

We've evolved with a set of moral responses that are found in humans all over the world. We're genetically equipped to dislike the one who harms, to sense fairnes and reciprocity, to respect authority, to be loyal to groups including groups larger than our genetic relatives, and to derive a sense of virtue through self-denial (Jonathan Haidt tells us) and of course we have mammalian instincts of nurture and protection of our young.

That's the 'objective' basis we share, each of us having those traits to greater or lesser degrees, with exceptions being exactly that.

On top of that go the influences of our upbringing, culture, education and experience. (So for example, whether the bride brings a dowry or the groom pays a brideprice or no one pays anything is generally culturally determined.)

The future of moral philosophy is found in field research, not armchairs.

Adam T :

19 Jun 2011 8:09:49am

I look forward to reading Parfit's book, but I remain sceptical that anyone has cracked this nut. Still, it would probably be a much more worthwhile read than 'The Moral Landscape', by Sam Harris, which abjectly failed to provide a decent account of objective morality.

It would be interesting to see the 'evidentialists', rush to assault this objective morality with the same vigour that they use to dismantle notions of God. Yet, I expect not much will happen...

IB :

19 Jun 2011 1:32:24am

Surely there cannot be anything new to be said on this subject. A 1400 page book seems like a self indulgence. The suggestion that without objectiveness nothing matters is absurd. Right and wrong depend on circumstance and the perspective of who is doing the judging. Always has been that way and always will be.

On the Wider Web

The violence, and responses to it, have raised a slew of questions. Is it helpful, or even accurate, to characterize these killings as religiously motivated? How have the attack and responses to it helped to construct or entrench the identities said to be in conflict? Should the events be understood in the context of France's history of satire or its history of colonialism? Can the two be separated in this case? What is the significance of the willingness of many not only to affirm free expression, but also to identify themselves with the magazine? Are there limits to the freedom of expression?

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. The Islamic State awaits the army of "Rome," whose defeat at Dabiq, Syria, will initiate the countdown to the apocalypse.

Subscribe

How Does this Site Work?

This site is where you will find ABC stories, interviews and videos on the subject of Religion & Ethics. As you browse through the site, the links you follow will take you to stories as they appeared in their original context, whether from ABC News, a TV program or a radio interview. Please enjoy.